3 ms·

> should you start from scratch Not in somebody else's cloud. :-p But ok. So there is the issue of compilers carrying binary-only payloads, which are only pas

by m3047 2y ago

> should you start from scratch Not in somebody else's cloud. :-p But ok. So there is the issue of compilers carrying binary-only payloads, which are only passed on when compiling the compiler. Really paranoid people worry about this, so it fits in the set of theoretical and demonstrated issues. But I don't have references for you off the top of my head; it's been acknowledged for a very long time. I'm ok with heterogenenaety and calling it good enough.

Aerbil313 2y ago
Sure, be ok with the status quo, you do you. But there will emerge young people who'll see the absolutely immense yet utterly overlooked advantages of a computing stack written from scratch, and they'll take on the enormous burden. Watch out, it's about time the world stop running on a kernel written in 1991. Software does age with real world time, and it shall die a natural death if it is to not to be kept in life support at ever increasing expense. Open source could write 5 fully functional and modern Software Development, Distribution and Running Infrastructures (currently known as an OS) per day if all the effort didn't went into the hospitalization of the current ones and the ecosystems surrounding them.
- m3047 2y ago
  > it's about time the world stop running on a kernel written in 1991 In the spirit of debate only, I observe that the Theseus legend concerns the farmer's axe: replaced the handle three times and the head twice, still a damned good axe. Thus marches whatever software you cite: the legionnaires may die and be replaced but the legion marches on. A lot of the burgeoning cost concerns camp followers rather than the legion itself. You seem to get that in your reference to ecosystems. Having trouble getting water in camp? If your pack animals are dying it's a different concern than your follower's. I mean, whose animals are you going to eat first? I would like nothing better than to be running on a kernel written in 1584. (Arbitrarily chosen year, seriously.)
  - Aerbil313 2y ago
    I get that. However the analogy doesn't hold. "Modern" software is not a hammer you can replace the two parts of. It's a Boeing 747 which only allows small, incremental improvements in the replaced parts. With great effort you can customize it to be the Air Force One but you can't make an F35 out of it unless you start from scratch. Many design decisions made 33 years ago which are unwise in hindsight are ingrained in not only all software we write today, but even in the way we think about software now.

by m3047 2y ago

Aerbil313 2y ago

Sure, be ok with the status quo, you do you. But there will emerge young people who'll see the absolutely immense yet utterly overlooked advantages of a computing stack written from scratch, and they'll take on the enormous burden. Watch out, it's about time the world stop running on a kernel written in 1991. Software does age with real world time, and it shall die a natural death if it is to not to be kept in life support at ever increasing expense. Open source could write 5 fully functional and modern Software Development, Distribution and Running Infrastructures (currently known as an OS) per day if all the effort didn't went into the hospitalization of the current ones and the ecosystems surrounding them.

m3047 2y ago
> it's about time the world stop running on a kernel written in 1991 In the spirit of debate only, I observe that the Theseus legend concerns the farmer's axe: replaced the handle three times and the head twice, still a damned good axe. Thus marches whatever software you cite: the legionnaires may die and be replaced but the legion marches on. A lot of the burgeoning cost concerns camp followers rather than the legion itself. You seem to get that in your reference to ecosystems. Having trouble getting water in camp? If your pack animals are dying it's a different concern than your follower's. I mean, whose animals are you going to eat first? I would like nothing better than to be running on a kernel written in 1584. (Arbitrarily chosen year, seriously.)
- Aerbil313 2y ago
  I get that. However the analogy doesn't hold. "Modern" software is not a hammer you can replace the two parts of. It's a Boeing 747 which only allows small, incremental improvements in the replaced parts. With great effort you can customize it to be the Air Force One but you can't make an F35 out of it unless you start from scratch. Many design decisions made 33 years ago which are unwise in hindsight are ingrained in not only all software we write today, but even in the way we think about software now.